Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Dele Peters, Judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sitting in Lagos division has ordered Rimco Mining Company Limited to pay Dr. ex-staff Arnoud Jan Feijter the sum of $44,000 being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant for the months of November and December 2015 as admitted, the sum of $11,000 being the Claimant's salary for the period 1st to 14th September, 2014 and the sum of $11,000 being his salary for the period 1st to 12th January 2016 with N200,000 cost of action within 30 days.
The Claimant Arnoud Jan Feijter commenced the action dated 16th September 2016, wherein the claimant sought against the firm among others; An order for payment of the sum of 44,000 USD (forty-four thousand US Dollars) being arrears of salary for the months of November 2015 and December 2015 at the rate of 22,000 USD ( Twenty-Two Thousand US Dollars) per month. An order for payment of the sum of 11,000 USD (Eleven Thousand US Dollars) being half month arrears of salary for the period of 1st September 2014 to 14th September 2014.
Likewise, An order for payment of =N=1,107,750.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira) being the cost of shipping his belongings/property from Nigeria back to Holland, which shipment was occasioned by defendant’s refusal to honour the terms and conditions of employment as it relates to provision of suitable accommodation for him.
The case of the claimant as revealed is that he was offered employment by the 1st defendant via a letter dated 13th June 2014 and resumed on 1st September 2014 on a monthly salary of 22,000 USD, alleged that he was owed three months arrears of salary by the defendants.
The defendants admitted owing the claimant only 2 months arrears of salary and also counterclaimed against the claimant stating that the claimant was supposed to give 3 months notice of intention to disengage from defendants’ employment.
The Defendants subsequently filed a statement of defence on 2/2/17 together with all requisite processes as directed by the Rules of Court and counterclaimed for An order that the claimant pays to the defendant three months remuneration at the rate of $66,000 being payment to the defendant in lieu of notice of the claimant’s termination of appointment as contracted by the parties and the sum of =N=6,000,000.00 being the defendant attorney’s fees, costs and expenses of the suit.
Under cross-examination, claimant testified that t he was working for 1st Defendant in Addis Ababa; that he was provided accommodation in a Guest House when he resumed; that he was prepared to continue to work with Defendants provided given adequate accommodation; that he informed Defendants before he left; that he was not confirmed by Defendant; that he did not give any 3 months because he left temporarily to provide accommodation for his family which Defendant failed to provide and that his absence was temporary.
The Defendants counter claimed that the claimant’s purported suspension of his contact or resignation is in violation of his terms of employment which requires that the claimant give a three months notice or pay three months remuneration in lieu of notice.
Learned counsel submits that apart from the arrears of November and December 2015 salary which is admitted by the Defendants, the other claims are unproven and should be dismissed. He submits that the claimant has failed to prove his claim.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Dele Peters expressed thus;
“The law remains trite that the burden of proof is always on he who asserts. This burden is discharged by adducing credible, cogent and admissible evidence which evidence may be oral, documentary or even both. It is usually in situation in which there is admission of material facts that the imperative of proof is dispensed with. For, it is trite that facts admitted need no further proof.
"It is the duty of the Court to give effect to contract voluntarily entered to by the parties. Having admitted failure to honour its contractual obligation to the Claimant, the need to prove the same again is dispensed with.
“The Defendants had failed to inform the Court what the Claimant was doing during the period under consideration if indeed the Claimant did not work for them. It is my finding that the Claimant worked for the Defendants till the 12th of January 2016.
“The expenses referred to by the Claimant in his relief can best be described as personal expenses and not business expenses as they are for the shipment of his personal effects, which the defendants are not responsible for. I find and hold that this head of claim is not proved. Same is refused and dismissed accordingly.
Finally, the court ordered defendant to pay claimant the sum of $44,000 being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant for the months of November and December 2015 as admitted, the sum of $11,000 being the Claimant's salary for the period 1st to 14th September 2014 and the sum of $11,000 being his salary for the period 1st to 12th January 2016 with N200,000 cost of action within 30 days.
His Lordship dismissed the counter claim for lacking merit.
